Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 39

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

→

Designer navboxes

Noticed that Template:Kurt Tank aircraft have started to appear, we dont normally have navboxes based on designers, thoughts. MilborneOne (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Guilty I am afraid. I have created some where no obvious manufacturer ties some designs together, such as:

etc. Now that is not to say that is a good idea, but just that I have done it! - Ahunt (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Who are "we" ? The usual aircraft cabal who object to anyone else editing "their" articles? Why not a navbox on designers, where those designers are significant and their designs have some continuing theme? So Tank seems a pretty obvious candidate, as would be a number of the Russians and even Geoffrey Hill. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Nobody has said we didnt want them or like them just checking as we dont appear to have any boundaries or guidance on them, and if we agree on something we can add it to the approporiate guideline. And calm down a bit on the cabal stuff, it is fairly clear that "we" refers to this project. MilborneOne (talk) 14:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not over-enthusiastic about designer navboxes. On the one hand one can always put a list just a click away in the designer's biog. article and there is a tendency for templates to accumulate on a page and create clutter. On the other hand they obviously save that extra click - or at least, they do if they default to expanded. If they default to collapsed then that's the extra click reintroduced to expand them. But if they default to expanded that's the clutter magnified. IMHO a user interested in designer A's aircraft will most likely be interested in other aspects of designer A, so the template would actually not be needed that often - a link to designer A's biog. article where a list may be found would be a better bet. But I am well aware that some folks love templates and just because I wouldn't use them doesn't mean that others wouldn't. Just, please ensure they default to collapsed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Navigation radio

New article Navigation radio that I am sure must be better covered elsewhere, if not it needs a good seeing to. MilborneOne (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to Radio navigation? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it duplicates Radio navigation and should be redirected there. - Ahunt (talk) 17:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to note I redirected the article the other day to point to Radio Navigation. MilborneOne (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Caproni Ca.60

Hello everybody! I'm an Italian Wikipedia user and I haven't been editing en.wikipedia a lot so far, but I'm happy to inform you that I just published an expanded version of the article about the Caproni Ca.60, or Transaereo (a fascinating machine!). Since I'm not an English native speaker, I'd be grateful if someone could proofread the article and correct my mistakes. (Later I'd like to submit the article for DYK, and maybe even GA.) Thank you very much! --M.L.Watts _{Watts up?} 19:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

HAL Tejas

HAL Tejas is getting persistent attention again from a blocked user coming in as an IP editor. Could it be semi-protected for say a month? Likely CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder would benefit too. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

semi-protected for a month. MilborneOne (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Direct Fly sro

I just completed an article on this Czech aircraft manufacturer and an editor immediately WP:CSD it. Can another editor review the CSD nom? - Ahunt (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Just remove the tag to contest the speedy, then the nominator is forced to take it to afd. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a CSD, so as the article creator anyone except me can remove the tag. - Ahunt (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Another editor just removed the tag. - Ahunt (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Variable pitch fan

Variable pitch fan has been created by User:Altadena1, a user with a long history of adding material to aeroengine-related articles with little or no sourcing. This article he/she created is no different. Any suggestions on where to go from here? - BilCat (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Move it to Draft:Variable pitch fan until it can be suitably wikified? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but it might have to go through AFD first. - BilCat (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I would say that since it has a few refs now that you should tag the the non-supported text and then if no refs appear after a suitable length of time stub the article down to the cited text. - Ahunt (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft

I have recently starte a tidy up on some of the series of List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft which has involved:

Removing the block and manufacturers codes from American military aircraft for example changing McDonnell-Douglas F-15A-14-MC Eagle to the more common McDonnell Douglas F-15A Eagle, and yes somebody has redirects for these technical block codes.
Removing made up designations like Hawker-Siddeley/McDonnell-Douglas F-4 Phantom II not sure where that came from.
Removing the constructors numbers for aircraft that are already identifed by serial number, per common practice in other articles.
Removing information that the aircraft had previosuly been converted from another alphabet soup of designations, sorry trivia not relevant to the accident.
Expanding abbreviations that the general reader would not know like "KWF".

User:Mark Sublette has called my changes dumbing down and reverted them all I am trying to do is remove the trivia and non-notable information and make the articles more readable and relevant to the reader rather then the fanboys. Comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Your clean-ups seem to all be in accordance with our WikiProject standards here to me. - Ahunt (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I concur , but defend the need for writing the more complete entries first, before simplification.--Petebutt (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Aircraft specs

I have developed a modification to the template to add parameters commonly used for gliders and sailplanes. I have only added to the template and not altered anything that was already there. Are there any objections to these modifications?--Petebutt (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed the changes and yes I think it adds too much complexity to the template for just a few aircraft affected. Items like the amount of water ballast carried should be mentioned in the text of the article instead, which is where I have put it in the glider articles I have started. That also allows for adding specific information such as the number of tanks, filling method (single port or multiple port) and the dumping method. - Ahunt (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that the changes give little benefit to the system as a whole. My other concern is that any addition - potentially affecting many articles - ought to be tested before implementation. To look to (what I would call for lack of a better words) the cause for the addition, and thinking in general terms and not the specific parameters in this case, is the existing system ('|more performance='?) for adding "other" information to the specifications 'layout' up to the job? If it is then specific content additions could be made through that as required, and if not, then it should be fixed such that in future they can be without altering the template. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I am sure we had a discussion on this before that really only commonly found specification items should be listed not everything possible, if these additions dont appear in the normal description sources like Janes then they should be mentioned in the text if important or notable. MilborneOne (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, additional data could be listed in the 'more general' and 'more performance' fields, if needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason for the changes is because relevant parameters are universally quoted in Jane's.--Petebutt (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The one Jane's glider reference book I have does include water ballast weight and rough air/max speed in the specs table but not any of the other speeds. The most complex glider types have 15 parameters in the specs table which I will list: Wing span, length, height, wing area, wing section, aspect ratio, empty weight, max weight, water ballast, max wing loading, max speed, stalling speed, minimum sinking speed (sink rate), max rough air speed and best glide ratio/speed.

I have noticed an increasing trend to add figures for a second variant in the specs tables (not just gliders). The specs section header usually has the variant described in parentheses e.g. 'Acme Thrunger (Mk 1)' but in the specs we have extra values for the 'Acme Thrunger (Mk V)'. Seems to be a way of side stepping the one set of specs per article guideline. The result is a very cluttered specs section IMO. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Greek fighter jet crashes in Spain killing 10 people

F-16 crash appears to be more notable than the usual military accident as it appears to have crashed on flightline with aircraft from different countries, refer http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30991950 I suspect ryan will be along in a moment. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Invitation: Editathon at Thinktank, Birmingham, on 7 March 2015

You are invited to an editathon at Thinktank, Birmingham, England, on 7 March 2015.

The focus will be on the museum's science and industry collection. We will have an exclusive preview of (and be able to photograph) exhibits recently acquired for the forthcoming new Spitfire (aircraft) Gallery, plus talks, and the opportunity to work with curators. Assistance will be available for new editors.

A light lunch and refreshments will be provided. Booking required. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Vehicle cats

User:Ceyockey has just added two vehicle cats Category:Vehicle manufacturing companies established in 1937 Category:Vehicle manufacturing companies disestablished in 1946 to Chilton Aircraft I removed it with the explanation that these are not used on aircraft articles but they added it again, I have removed them and asked the user to come here to discuss. I am pretty sure this has been discussed in the past that as aircraft had its own category tree the vehicle ones dont apply, comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: There is consideration of categories here, but as far as I can see, it is focused on categorization of aircraft as machines and specifically defers discussion of the companies involved in the manufacture of the craft. I'm referring to the scope statement at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/Categories, though there could be other discussions which are directly impacting on the present one which I've not seen yet. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Categorization of aircraft manufacturers

see also input in #Vehicle cats above, which was added pretty much simultaneously to this comment here

There has been a small dispute in regard to categorization of aircraft manufacturers. In regard to Chilton Aircraft, I had taken the action to categorize to Category:Vehicle manufacturing companies established in 1937 and Category:Vehicle manufacturing companies disestablished in 1946; this was reverted by @MilborneOne: with the edit summary "not normally used or related to aircraft companies". I rolledback his reversion -- so many edits of this type are drive-by edits that I do often (though not always) do a 1-revert -- and he subsequently reverted my rollback, and here we are.

The question at hand should be restricted to companies which manufacture aircraft, not to the larger scale use of company-establishment categories. If you have a concern about the whole practice of creating company-establishment categories, this should probably go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies or Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories.

May manufacturers of aircraft be classified as companies and as vehicle manufacturing companies?

If yes, may such companies by classified by their dates of establishment and disestablishment?

Thanks --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Aircraft manufacturers is already a subset of Category:Vehicle manufacturing companies (added in December 2005) so there is no need to add any 'vehicle' categories to company articles that have already been categorised as an aircraft manufacturer. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Quite surprised not to see any discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies on the creation of all these new categories. To me they are over categorisation (WP:OVERCAT). Generally with aircraft manufacturing companies they are categorised by nationality, whether they are defunct or not and sometimes the year they were established/disestablished (if known) using the simple 'Companies established in 19XX' category format, can't see what else would be needed. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes I missed that they had only been created today, perhaps need to think about a visit to WP:CFD to discuss deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@MilborneOne and Nimbus227: The reason why these categories are being established is because of the large number of members in latter day Companies established in year categories. When you have 500+ members in a category like that, you need to do some subcategorization. It may well be that it is not needed for cats of <100 members, which is fine. Aircraft manuf by year is over categorization, certainly; manuf by year is likely a reasonable compromise between vehicle manuf by year and companies by year. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

A link to the discussion on the creation of these categories would be useful, I would like to understand the thinking behind it and I guess other editors would as well. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

There has been no discussion on the creation of these categories. You are assuming that they emerge from consensus when in fact they emerge from individual editor action. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Flag icons in infobox

Two users are adding flag icons to the infoboxes at Mitsubishi F-2 and Mitsubishi F-15J. Milb1 and I have both tried to revert these additions, but they keep being readded. We could use some extra eyes on this, and perhaps even page protection from admins. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Added both to watchlist. Same ed responsible. Asked them to begin dialogue on my F2 revert Irondome (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Nigel and Finlayson are also helping out. Much appreciated. - BilCat (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Anytime! Just figured out there is a central project talkpage. Duhh Irondome (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec)The use of flags in this instance is contrary to WP:MOSINFOBOXFLAG, but the editors in question appear happy to ignore this guidance, with one stating that because other language wikis use flags in infoboxes, that gives them free reign to add them.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, English Wikipedia is somewhat inconsistent about when flags are used in infoboxes, so I do understand the confusion, but our own guidelines at WP:AIR/PC clearly recommend against it, and that is supported by the guidelines at WP:INFOBOXFLAG. - BilCat (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have protected F-15J for the time being, I will keep an eye on F-2 for now, it may attract a visit from a possible "item of clothing worn on the feet" User:Suneditor who appears at the right time to help. MilborneOne (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Been noticing a steady removal of flags on many articles, especially hardware, although anomolies are still around. Assuming this is the way to go on En. Wikipedia. Am removing flags if I see them. Seems to be some confusion in Users sections though. Irondome (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Although we dont have anything in the page guidelines it has always been excepted that the only place country flags are used is in the operators section. That doesnt mean it cant be challenged. MilborneOne (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Ameri-Cana Ultralights aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_16#Template:Ameri-Cana_Ultralights_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Acme aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_13#Template:Acme_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Note that this TfD discussion has been re-listed to get wider input as there is no clear consensus on keeping or deleting this template at this point in time. - Ahunt (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Text dump to McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II

Please take a look at the large amount of text added to McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II about the "First Supersonic Gun Kill" (from User:Zkhan khan/sandbox). I had removed most of the text and left a summary in the Operational history section, but the text was readded this morning. I think the text is overly detailed and should be summarized. Thanks for any help. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, check my edits and others at Northrop F-5, thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I've commented on the Phantom's talk page. The changes are undue for the article, while the other recent major changes (the modifications to Iranian F-4s) are sourced to a forum. Not good for a Featured Article! Nigel Ish (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The text dump was from a declined article for creation draft (experienced editors encouraged adding it to the F-4 article!), there were no wikilinks at all, questionable sources and written in a sensational tone ('spouting bullets' etc). I've removed it. Could not restore to a version before the Iranian detail additions because of an intermediate edit. It's easy to forget that it is a Featured Article and all too easy to ignore low quality additions, I will try to watch it better in future. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much! -Fnlayson (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Airbus Helicopters redesignations

Airbus Helicopters has announced that they are redesignating most of their helicopter lineup, as detailed here. We probably need to decide which, if any, of the exiw articles we are going to rename, and move-protect those we are not going to move immediately, as over-eager users will probably be making moves soon. Thanks. - ~~ ~

I guess this was inevitable, but personally I wish they would stop changing the designations with each corp re-org. - Ahunt (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The H160 looks to be the first new H model. So that one for sure. The others might be covered by listing alternate names/designations. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It might be worth creating redirects from the new names back to the old names as a starting point. MilborneOne (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Also, we probably need to go ahead and create an article on the new Airbus Helicopters H160, as there should be enough reliable sources out there to meet WP:GNG. - BilCat (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, Template:Eurocopter aircraft should probably be moved to Template:Airbus Helicopters aircraft now, but an admin will need to make the move. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

MilborneOne (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

MikroKopter

One editor has been trying for some time to add a large WP:PEACOCK list of operational uses to this article, which is about a company, not an aircraft type. The refs he keeps adding do not mention the company or its products and could be about any drone and so after some talk page text I have removed them, twice now. Some additional input on the talk page would be useful. - Ahunt (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Mass infobox image changes

User:TseRonnie has been unilaterally changing a slew of lead images in airliner articles, inspite of knowing that discussion is recommended before changing the images, as stated here. I've reverted a few of them so far, but I don't want to get into an edit war. Any suggestions? - BilCat (talk) 07:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for not discussing these changes on the talk page first. I understand that I should have reached consensus before image changes. All of them are good-faith edits and reasons for the changes are noted. If you want to revert the images (I may have misunderstood the suggestions for images, per WP:AIRCRAFT-IMAGES), feel free to do so. You do not have to notify me. I will stop changing images on pages where it is noted that a talk page consensus should be reached before image changes. Regards, tr (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI New fictional aircraft article

The article is the Carreidas 160. Enjoy reading it. If you would like to review it for GA, please click "follow this link" on the Talk page. Cheers, all. Prhartcom (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Tiltwings vs tiltrotors

There is a discussion at Talk:Powered_lift#Tilting_intermediates about how to classify some current powered-lift projects which tilt only part of the fixed wing surface with the rotors. It could do with a few more participants. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Kellet Cobra XX-9 (Attack helicopter) in List of rotorcraft used in World War II. What is it?

Hello! Can anyone give me any reliable sources about this mysterious "attack helicopter" during WW2? This name is on that list for a long time, but I can not find a source proving the existence of such aircraft. I always wondered if some WW2 helicopters, such as the Flettner Fl-282 or Sikorsky R-4, were experimentally equipped with machine guns (I think I read about some attempts made on the R-4, but only after the war). I would not want that this XX-9 is a hoax. Regards NRG1985 (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Googling the term [1] produces only forum posts and Wikipedia mirrors, so it's safe to say that this is a hoax. I've removed it. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Reciprocating electric motor

A user has created an unreferenced stub, Reciprocating electric motor. I'm posting this here as many of our editors are interested in engines and motors. The user had posted in-text comments that they intended to add sources next week. Should this be userfied/converted to a draft article? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting subject, but, yes, no refs at all. I would check it in a month and if no refs still then userfy it. - Ahunt (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Another editor has speedied it, so it'll be gone soon. - BilCat (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure it warrants CSD, but let's see what the reviewing admin says. - Ahunt (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Shark.Aero Shark

Some recent edits here seem to me non-encyclopaedic and POV. I've made some modest changes but would appreciate other views and edits. The two pics of different Sharks in flight are very similar; prune one?TSRL (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Yup - distinctly promotional. I've tagged the obvious problems, and if they aren't fixed I suggest trimming back to verifiable data. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks like it got COI spammed. I have run through it and made some fixes and will keep an eye on it. Perhaps someone can check my changes? - Ahunt (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ahunt. Looks good to me now. I've added cn for numbers built (only appears in infobox).TSRL (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I tried to source the production number, but couldn't find anything, not even on the manufacturer's website, so I removed it, pending a source. - Ahunt (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Airsport aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_17#Template:Airsport_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Editors can note that another editor has now completed the missing redlinks for this template, whereas it only had one aircraft type article before. - Ahunt (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Acme Aircraft Corporation

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acme Aircraft Corporation. - Ahunt (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Project members can note that I recently expanded the article using the 1929 edition of Janes, and I believe that it now makes the notability criteria. The AfD is still underway. - Ahunt (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Project members can note that the AfD was closed as "keep". - Ahunt (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Briffaud aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this nav box template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_29#Template:Briffaud_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 11:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It can be noted that this TfD was closed as "no consensus" and therefore the template has been retained. - Ahunt (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

DJI (company)

This article needs serious improvements and updates, things like the DJI Inspire and the DJI Phantom 3. GizModo, Forbes, Engadet, even the BBC. I'm thinking things like the Inspire need their own article maybe? And the company page needs lots of cleanup... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 21:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association. - Ahunt (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

HAL AMCA

While working out why an article on what is really just another Indian design project and tried to work out why it has some much text added to it recently I noticed the HAL AMCA template has been added which doent really add anything to the article so I have nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 11#Template:Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft, comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The article itself is a mess, with much of it sourced to blogs and other unreliable sources. It would take a colossal effort, however, to clean the aricle up.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I have tried a few tweaks but as Nigel says it is now badly sourced and mostly woffle and trivia. Perhaps we should roll it back to before all the recent changes by an IP? MilborneOne (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Tethered VTOL UAS Article

I am long time user of Wikipedia first time author. I would like to put together a new article on tethered VTOL UAS. I have listed a few examples of the platforms below. Would an article of this type meet the notability standards of Wikipedia?

hoverflytech.com
tetheredvtol.com
cyphyworks.com
lasermotive.com
versatol.com
http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1319536

AviationUAS (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this topic bigger than could just be a section in Unmanned aerial vehicle? Also those websites you note all seem to be manufacturers or sales websites, an article based on those would probably be seen as promotional in nature. An article really needs independent third party sources as per WP:N, like newspaper, journal and magazine coverage. - Ahunt (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

BUAP

Which planes feature the BUAP? --Ysangkok (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

That depends on what you mean by BUAP. I am guessing not BUAP. - Ahunt (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Presumably the Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot. I have added a disambig link at ~~BUAP~~ Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC) - corrected 18:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

BUAP still redirects to Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla currently. - Ahunt (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I see, you added a hatnote. Personally I would have made BUAP into a disambiguation page, but your call on that. - Ahunt (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Oops, yes, BUAP itself is a redirect, sorry. There is currently a merge discussion over Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot and Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot - until that is settled, I'd hate to start thinking about any possible disambig page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The merge discussion at Talk:Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot was marked closed, but the discussion is almost repeated at Talk:Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot. More input there would be help resolve that. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

PAK TA

PAK TA - not sure what to make of this !! MilborneOne (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is clearly about as likely to be built as a nuclear-powered bomber, but the links seem to be genuine. I suspect it may be just a bit of fluff to try and con some investor or government department out of their money. Such vapour projects have always been common enough in aviation. Do we ever document them? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

We actually do have a standard for this at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/Notability#Future_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Notification of Good Article reassessment

Boeing 787 Dreamliner, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Help from interested editors with this would be greatly appreciated. It may not pass GA review, but it can be readily improved using the review comments. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

CASA C-295 Persuader

I just ran across CASA C-295 Persuader. I'm not sure it's really.significant enough for its own article. The Spanish version looks like mostly fluff. Should we redirect back to the parent article? - BilCat (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The Spanish article has enough refs for some serious content, but it needs someone to make the effort to translate and transcribe. - Ahunt (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks like it's main difference is the CASA FITS electronic systems which the airframe is carrying, if I followed the translation correctly. I think a redirect would be sensible. Could we put the FITS system somewhere in the EN WP article? Or see also? Cheers Irondome (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Is a blended wing body aircraft a type of flying wing?

Personally, I think 'flying wing', 'blended wing body', 'lifting body', and conventional aircraft are different designs. However, someone apparently thinks that blended wing body aircraft are a type of flying wing, as he/she insists on the B-2 bomber (which is indisputably a blended wing body design) as the lead photo of the flying wing article. What do you guys say? Darx9url (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

A discussion related to this already started at Talk:Flying wing. Try discussing there first. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this issue is bigger than just what lead photo to use on flying wing. This project should decide how 'flying wing', 'blended wing body', 'lifting body', and tailless aircraft are related to each other; and if any group is a subset of any other group. These relationships should then be made clear in the articles. E.g., if blended wing body is a type of flying wing, then say so in both the flying wing and blended wing body article. If flying wings are a type of tailless aircraft, then this should be mentioned in both the flying wing article and the tailess aircraft article. But first thing to do is to sort out the relationships, and have it written down somewhere. Maybe the tailess aircraft article? There's something here already, but it's not very clear.Blended_wing_body#History. Darx9url (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

So far there has been no sourcing to state the B2 is a blended wing, let alone "indisputably". GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I've never seen the B-2 called a blended wing body aircraft, but I've seen it called a flying wing many times in reliable sources. As far is BWB being a type of flying wing, it's more of a hybrid between a flying wing and a conventional wing-and-fuselage aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Since Darx9url (talk · contribs) chooses not to follow Fnlayson's suggestion, let me repeat here what I wrote there on this very issue; "Structurally and visually a BWB has visibly distinct wings and fuselage and maybe even a tail plane, but with no clear dividing line. A flying wing is monolithic, generally 'looks like' a wing and is (strictly) tailless, although it may have pronounced bulges. A lifting body is also monolithic but looks more like a flattened carrot than a wing, and it may also have tail surfaces. Fundamentally, the distinctions are governed by the structure and the aerodynamics. Somewhere in the middle they all merge into a sleek organic double-delta hypersonic type form and when somebody makes one of those we'll all have a little brainstorm." A tailless type has only a single horizontal surface in planform with neither tailplane nor foreplane (nor tandem plane), though it may have vertical tail fins. These definitions are all made clear in the various article leads and again summarised in the article on wing configurations. If anyone thinks that further citations are needed, these articles can be tagged accordingly. If one wants to know how to classify a given model, such as the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit, one must appeal to reliable sources (see WP:RS). In that particular case the sources appear unanimous that it is a flying wing. Accordingly I have corrected the recently-introduced error in that particular article and cited a couple of those sources. I should also like to thank my fellow editors who helped out with restoring the flying wing article to sensible form after my attempts were reverted. There is no structural issue for the Project to address here, just an overexcited editor in need of checking their facts properly and perhaps also of following good advice. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC) [updated with tailless type 18:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)]

Frankly, I don't give 2 toots what the B2 is. What I want the people here to clarify is, how are flying wings, blended wing bodies, and lifting bodies related. And make it clear on those pages. Darx9url (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

After a bit of search I found this: "In general, there are four plane shapes: A tube with wings, a blended wing body, a hybrid wing, and a flying wing." from this article[2] on Extreme Tech. The issue of different body shapes and how they are related should be in some article somewhere. Darx9url (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

So now you add the "hybrid wing" to your issues. A little more looking might have revealed the first cite given in the blended wing body article lead, and also perhaps this phsyics.org and this NASA reference to "the blended or hybrid wing body". Here is an Aviation Week reference to "pure flying-wing designs like the BWB". At first sight this supports the usage of the less-than-reliable Extreme Tech boyzone. However there are plenty of counter-examples which do have tail planes - the blended wing body article gives a good number of cited examples. Consequently the article follows the more authoritative and established usage and treats the two types as synonyms - with tails optional. As I have explained once already, the article on wing configurations gives the overall picture. Are you having trouble reading it? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox aviation

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_2#Template:Infobox_aviation. - Ahunt (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Ibis Aviation aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_2#Template:Ibis_Aviation_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Notification on nomination for deletion of Template:Airreg

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 May 3#Template:Airreg. MilborneOne (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Is the Tu-4 part of B-29 production run?

Bit of a disagreement at List of most-produced aircraft, should the Tupolev Tu-4 production be added to the Boeing B-29 production totals? I have started a request for comment if any project members have a view. MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

No, because it has no commonality with its production. However it is still a B-29 variant. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Airbus templates

User:Ssolbergj has changed Template:Aircraft of the Airbus Group to a redirect to Template:Airbus Group, while I dont have a problem including the list of aircraft in that template it is not an appropriate template for use on aircraft articles. I have restored the aircraft template and also corrected the name to the more standard Template:Airbus Group aircraft per normally convention. MilborneOne (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how it is inappropriate to just use a more comprehensive template for the articles of all aspects of this company, including those on its divisions and products. For comparison I think that Template:European Space Agency is used sensibly on the articles of the agency's projects. On a different note I would say that Template:Airbus Helicopters aircraft is completely redundant, and should be redirected to Template:Airbus Group aircraft (if the latter is to still exist separately). Helicopters are also aircraft, and Template:Airbus Group aircraft presents the different products in a more orderly manner, in that it separates between fixed-wink aircraft and helicopters and also clarifies what each division of the Airbus Group produces. -Ssolbergj (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The aircraft types templates are designed for use on aircraft articles which dont really need a big navbox related to the company, particularly when most of it is not relevant to some legacy products. We keep the legacy aircraft navboxes in most cases rather than roll them up into larger and larger groups. This is particularly true in this case for the helicopters which all have different pedigrees. Nothing wrong with a big navbox for the company articles but not to replace the aircraft and legacy boxes. I think we have called this the "British Aerospace Spitfire" or "Boeing DC-3" effect. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Concur. And I guess it would be the "BAE Systems Spitfire" now. - BilCat (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Aircraft needing ID

Beechcraft Baron? Piper Comanche? Something else? - Jmabel | Talk 03:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Cessna 310 - Ahunt (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

A400M Accident

Just for information an A400M has crashed on a test flight http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32673713 MilborneOne (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

That could be significant! - Ahunt (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Appears to have been a Turkish aircraft (or would have been). MilborneOne (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It was on some sort of test flight, so that could be an indication of something with some lasting implications. I think this is the first crash of an A400M, so probably bears a mention in the type article. - Ahunt (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it is already there: Airbus A400M Atlas. - Ahunt (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Now has its own article 2015 Seville A400M crash, bad as it is right now. - Ahunt (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems like any crash gets an article started before the dust has settled, like a news service. :( -Fnlayson (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly like a news service. - Ahunt (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you'd think Wikinews didn't exist. - BilCat (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not finding an article about the A400M accident on En.Wikinews now. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. - BilCat (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

check on Passenger capacity in specs

An ip editor has changed (Special:Contributions/98.242.185.106) the passenger capacity in about 18 articles. I've reverted one as the edit also removed the cite directly next to it, but I don't have the resources to confirm or positively reject the other edits. Could someone have a look over them? GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

All undone now, on the basis that it is up to the editor to provide a source for the change - although a couple I checked did not agree with his/her edits anyway. Hopefully it isn't a dynamic IP. 08:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Dassault Rafale

There's an IP on Dassault Rafale who keeps adding too much info into the infobox. I've gone over 3RR in my total edits, though on 2 different issues. Could some editors step in please, and see what they can do? Thanks. -BilCat (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Added to much info? I have deleted useless info, found the correct citation and translated it, and reformatted the info so it is easier to read. And the info box has yet to come close to filling the blank space that is left on that side of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.47.63 (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Why does the unit cost range from $220 million to almost $300 million? The Egypt deal in particular includes a frigate as well, so why has the Rafale unit cost included the cost of the frigate in it? Not to mention the cost of missiles, training, etc, which should not be counted as part of the unit cost. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 21:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The now removed reference for India does not actually support "unit cost" just people making guesses based on the contract value and the number of aircraft, as Sp33dyphil has said you cant ignore training, logistics, simulators and offsets so it just look like very badly done original research. I also note that despite all the excitement from IPs India has not actually placed a contract yet so should not really be listed in "operators", it also means the final costs has not actually been agreed. MilborneOne (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Aérospatiale

A user has been changing Aérospatiale in that article to read "aeospatiale", uncapitalized and without an accent. Most reliable published sources use the capitalized and accented form. Any help settling this issue would be appreciated,especially from users fluent in French at Talk:Aérospatiale#aerospatiale without accent. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

As it is a brand, it is not subject to translation or interpretations. "Aérospatiale" would be the only acceptable form. Scr★pIron^IV 17:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

True amphibians

Does anyone know the date of the first flight of a truly amphibious aircraft, that is one that could take-off from land and alight on water? I know the Curtiss A-2 could be fitted either with wheels or with floats but think it only got retractable wheels late in 1912. The records of the day, as is often the case pre-WWI, are not always quite clear. I'm interested in the question as I'm writing an article on the Caudron-Fabre, which was certainly fitted with floats (Fabre type) and wheels at the same time by March 1912 (Flight has an early April photo of it taking-off from a beach, having run from land into the sea). It may have had this arrangement when it first flew in July-August 1910. Could this be the first of its kind?TSRL (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to merge the article of EADS into that of Airbus Group

I've proposed this. Thoughts? - Ssolbergj (talk) 09:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Aerion

User:AerionCorp has been making massive unsourced and POV/advert-type changes to Aerion. I've reverted twice, and added a COI warning to the user's talk page, but to no avail as yet. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Watched. - Ahunt (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

+1 — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Aircraft navbox deletions

As members of this WikiProject will be aware, we have had a number of our navboxes nominated for deletion in the past year. Most of these TfD debates were hard-fought and most were closed with the box being retained, although a few were deleted. The acrimonious debates have resulted in much time spend by project members that could have instead been spent writing articles. I know that at least a few project members have quit altogether or cut back participation due to issues like this that make working on the encyclopedia less than entirely fun. The TfD nominator, User:The Banner, also ended up with a six month topic ban as a result of his nominations, but came right back to them once the ban was up.

In a recent TfD on a navbox User:Dirtlawyer1 suggested that we make a deal with the nominator for WikiProject Aircraft to fix all the navboxes in exchange for a moratorium on nominations for a period of time to prevent wasting any more time on this. He does not believe many would survive TfD if they were nominated. There and on his talk page I worked out the parameters so I could at least bring the proposal here for discussion. User:Dirtlawyer1 is hoping that we can at least create stub articles to solve the navbox problem, given an appropriate time frame.

Even though they had different ideas about what makes for an acceptable naxbox, in talking with the original nominator and User:Dirtlawyer1 I have come up with a set of parameters that they both agree are the minimum to retain a navbox. This is based upon general TfD discussions and outcomes, as well as the WP:NAVBOX principle that navboxes are to facilitate navigation between articles, but beyond that, not upon firm Wikipedia policy. The proposed parameters to keep a navbox are:

That it have at least three blue links in the body (not counting the titular article or any generic links), and
That it have more blue links that red links, and
That it have a blue linked titular article (usually the manufacturing company)

The nominator has agreed to not nominate anymore navboxes until Christmas 2015 if we can address the problem between now and then.

One issue is understanding the scope of the work. We have a list of the navboxes here and there seems to be currently about 763 of them. I did a sampling and found that 28% did not meet all three of the criteria above. I figure assessing all the navboxes would take one person a solid week's work alone, which is why I only did a sample. If that sample holds for all of the boxes, then it would mean 214 navboxes would need addressing.

The required fixes vary hugely:

Some boxes just require links to existing articles to be fixed (easy)
Some boxes are manufacturers with just two aircraft models (hard)
Some boxes require many new articles to be written (hard), or perhaps have the red links "commented out" (easy) as long as it leaves at least three blue links.

In the discussions I have made the points that there are only a few of us actively writing articles here these days as issues like this have annoyed enough editors that they have quit. I have also made the point that in many cases the easy articles to create were done a long time ago and that most of the articles that need writing to save the navboxes require trips to the central library, to research old paper references one-at-a time as there are no on-line references.

I would like to throw this open to debate and see what the project members here think. I am going to invite both User:The Banner and User: Dirtlawyer1 to participate here, if they would like to. - Ahunt (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It would certainly help when you start to relax a bit: you are not under siege by barbarians. What is happening is that the WikiProject must comply with the rules set for Wikipedia, that is something different. And perhaps Individual Engagement Grants can help acquiring some sources that are difficult to reach.

And yes, I have agreed with a moratorium to Christmas 2015. But even that is not set in stone to my opinion. Make good progress and it is likely that I am willing to extent the moratorium to a later date. The Banner talk 21:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I think one of the key points I have made above is that none of the navboxes are in conflict with any Wikipedia policies or rules, or at least no one has been able to point to any policy that they fall afoul of. - Ahunt (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

If all the templates were okay, then why were some removed? They were falling foul of the rule that navigation templates should have something to navigate between. And the rule that templates are not decoration. The Banner talk 22:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Ahunt, in the spirit of collegiality and pitching in to get it done, if someone would start compiling a list of non-compliant navboxes somewhere in WikiProject space, I will commit to "fixing" 20 of the non-compliant navboxes between now and the end of the year. That would be about 10% of the estimated total that need work. With a to-do list, we can get identified editors to commit to fixing identified navboxes -- best way I know to work through the problem on something like a schedule. I've always wanted to do more work on aircraft-related topics, so this is a pretty good excuse. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay that is helpful. I have already started on that list and depending on the outcome of this debate that will probably be the first thing to post. - Ahunt (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that "That it have more blue links that red links" is borne out in the policies and guidelines. In fact a navbox with 3 blue links and a (larger) number of red ones points out to work to be accomplished. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Three relevant blue links is "required", the rest is a wish list to be filled "soon" (time and resource depending). The Banner talk 23:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Where does it say that three blue links are required? - Ahunt (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Look at other templates: navigation templates with less than three relevant links are often (but not always) removed. So stay at the safe side and go for three blue links. The Banner talk 12:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

So that is just an opinion from some TfDs, not a Wikipedia policy and only inconstantly applied at TfD too? That supports what I wrote above, that there are no policies being violated by any of the existing project navboxes. If there were I would nominate them for deletion myself. Even the guideline WP:NAVBOX, which is not mandatory, has nothing specific to say on the issue of how many blue links or red links a box should or shouldn't have. My big trepidation in starting this debate here is that if we do not have a policy to adhere to, but only opinions, then we could easily do a ton of work to make the boxes conform to one or two people's opinions and then have them all nominated for deletion by a new person who has a different opinion, rendering all the work done null. - Ahunt (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree entirely with the last evaluation of the status of the "requirements" (the quotes being a warning signal} and the probable consequences of proceeding with deletion by personal opinion.TSRL (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed not set in stone, TSRL. But naming it a personal opinion is also not correct. It is based on experience and what they call elsewhere "common outcomes". The Banner talk 21:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Having started this debate here I would like to add my own opinion and then let the debate run its course. I intend to let others speak up instead of me, at least until the debate has ended and it is time to sum up where we got to.

My opinion is that we need a Wikipedia policy (not guideline, essay or opinion) that says exactly what is acceptable for all navboxes right across en.wikipedia, to give uniform reader experience and expectations. The policy should be very specific in outlining what may be included in navboxes and what may not, including specific numbers on red and blue links. Creating a policy, setting the debates up and getting it accepted should be taken on by those editors with an interest in navboxes and willing to see the process though to completion. Until then, as with articles, template deletion nominations should only be based on policy and not on opinions. As I noted above if we take action on navboxes that are currently not in violation of any policy, based on one or two editor's opinions, likes and dislikes, then we run the risk of chasing chimeras.

Okay I am done. I hope we can hear from other people in as great a number as possible. - Ahunt (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to recap that the reason this project uses series navboxes is that there used to be a |sequence= parameter in Template:Aircontent, this was where all the manufacturer's other types used to be linked (also US military designations such as F, B, X etc). Two very good reasons why this was deprecated (around 2008/2009 from memory, possibly earlier) was that it was untidy and red links are not allowed in 'See also' sections per WP:SEEALSO (an MOS guideline) but they are allowed in navboxes. This solution is very neat and tidy and has taken an awful lot of thoughtful work to implement across the project. I can't understand objections to red links or not enough links, if they only had one single working link they would still be useful. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's go back to first principles, and try and frame the issue in a positive manner. The purpose of a navbox in general is to allow the reader to move from one article to a related one (once they've reached the end - rather than jumping off midway through). The reason for creation of these specific navboxes is given above so I won't repeat it.

The problem with a (and this still applies in the general) navbox with only a single blue link is that is doesn't actually link to anything. An aviation navbox with the manufacturer and single blue aircraft link offers no more functionality - as the manufacturer will be linked already (in infobox, lede, and possibly development section) - over a navboxless article.

The issue for some is that a navbox that does not lead the reader anywhere is not much use. But is it a case of only having a "decorative" function. As regards space on the page, or bytes used, an aviation navbox takes up relatively little room. How does the absence of active links harm the project anymore than say any article on an aircraft designer with a section of their works which is a list of redlinks. The aviation navbox with redlinks is a map of potential, with "here be dragons" or terra incognita.

I'd like to compare the aviation navbox with a succession box - which lists the position held, the subject of the article, and the predecessor and successor. It seems possible that such a specific navbox might include one or more redlinks. But would the majority of editors think it superfluous.

So an aviation navbox is a call-to-arms to create. To quote WP:REDLINK "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject...Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished."

It also says after saying where redlinks should not be "An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set".

The guideline cautions against creating the most minimal of stubs "it is better to leave this link red than to create a "placeholder stub"... with the sole purpose of turning the red link to blue. Editors should create stubs with a usable amount of content, or else not create the stub at all."

And having links means that "such a link prepares the article to be fully supported (not orphaned upon creation)".

So we need to balance the removal of navboxes that are not navigating readers with the possible counter-productive creation of stubs (before their time) just to validate the existence of the navbox, and the loss of linking when the article is created. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"4.5th generation" ?

Why are we adding the "th" after "4.5"? It's not as if we are pronouncing it "four point fifth", (which would actually be written as "4.2"). It's silly, needless and doesn't make sense. It should simply be "4.5 generation". As in, between the "fourth (4th) generation" and "fifth (5th) generation", is the "four point five (4.5) generation". Can we drop the "th"? - ^theWOLFchild 01:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds a reasonable proposal to me, however Google reveals both forms in fairly wide use. What form do reliable sources mostly use? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Does that really matter? If it's clearly wrong, why can't we just go with that? Whether or not any RS actually use just "4.5", would we be in the wrong using it? Nope. - ^theWOLFchild 02:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, WP:COMMONNAME prevails. But if common media usage is mixed while specialist RS across our multiple English-speaking cultures are in broad agreement, then we should run with the specialists' choice among the common alternatives. At least, that's the way I see it. I also think it is better to plump for a single consistent usage unless forced to accommodate multiple usages by the strengths of the various sources. It's probably naughty of me to say so, but if nobody comes up with RS to clarify usage, you can always start implementing your suggestion and see if anybody wakes up and argues. Or, is that why you came to the project in the first place? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

COMMONNANE... a guideline that creates as many problems as it solves. Anyway, you said; "...you can always start implementing your suggestion and see if anybody wakes up and argues." - I have now gone and done just that. In the article I noted, there are 8 references to "4.5 gen" aircraft, half of them had the "th" added. So I guess we'll see... - ^theWOLFchild 10:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Citation issues on Eurocopter AS350

Hello all. I've been trying to develop the article for the Eurocopter AS350, one of the most numerous helicopters currently in production; a fair bit of work has taken place in a short amount of time, but I feel that I've only managed to scratch at the surface so far. Would anyone be interested in helping to flesh out the Operational History; or to find cites for the numerous variants to which are listed so far without any source at all. The effort would be appreciated, and the article still feels like it could use a lot more attention. Kyteto (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Avro Vulcan XH558#Does this article need a Background section?

Please comment at the link above (it's self-explanatory as to what it's about). Natural Ratio (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

At best, a small section of the Vulcan's history would suffice as the Avro Vulcan XH558 and Avro Vulcan articles are both quite extensive and have many wikilinks already. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC on Eurofighter Typhoon

A Request for Comments is in progress at Eurofighter Typhoon as to whether to include a paragraph comparing the radar cross-section of this aircraft to the Dassault Rafale. Please participate in the RFC if you are interested. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: The actual RfC is here. - Ahunt (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

VL Kotka

Could someone help me by adding the imperial unit conversions to the Specifications section of this article? Thanks. --Msaynevirta (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Aviation lists template

Just curious if anyone cares that this template is about to be removed from 17,000 articles by non-project editors? Is it apathy or agreement that it should not be included? I have no idea what the silence on this meant. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

As you know there was a request for comment at Template talk:Aviation lists but evidently as a mere project we should not overide the common good no matter what we think. The same happened to Infobox aviation recently which is strange when some projects that continual fight to not include infoboxes at all seem to be exempt this project bashing. All projects are created equal but some are more equal than others. MilborneOne (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The issue was discussed at some length at WT:AVIATION#Template:Aviation lists, where we gave some other options, as the deletion was pretty much inevitable. - BilCat (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I seem to have completely missed that debate! There may be many others who also didn't get a chance to comment. Not sure that an RfC is the same as a TfC in this case. - Ahunt (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Instructions to include this template in aircraft articles were deleted yesterday. This implies that the template will only be used in the articles that feature in it, the 17,000 entries will have to be deleted by an editor or a bot, neither will be on my Christmas card list. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Can a bot work out the pages it should be on? User:Lugnuts has started to remove the template from articles although the count is still 17,800 uses so best of luck to them. The only requirement as a project as far as I can see is not to add it to new pages that are not relevant and we can leave the removal to others with time to spare. MilborneOne (talk) 07:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Well I have removed it from my own article creation templates, so it won't appear in new articles that I start. - Ahunt (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Sigh ... One consequence that navboxes will appear expanded, since they will be alone, unless we add a line state=collapsed in them. I'll do this with any new ones I write.TSRL (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like an admin has done the removals using AWB. - Ahunt (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

And as a consequence rendering watchlists useless for however many days it takes to delete 17000 templates as they are swamped by these removals - some editors are marking the removals as minor while some are not, while some are slipping in other (hopefully non-controvertial) changes while removing the infoboxes. Really this should have been left to a bit. We need to be careful to make sure that vandalism or other harmful edits are not masked by these mass deletions.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks as if it's done now.TSRL (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Nigel, this could have been done better, it made watching for vandalism and other edits very hard. At least it is done now. - Ahunt (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree, is a (mild) rebuke in order? I noticed the other tweaks (eg 'Image' to 'File') at same time and the few I double-checked seemed legit. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like our favorite anti-WPAIR troll is at it again, gleefully comparing our loss of the template to experiencing anal rape. Can someone do something about this crap? - BilCat (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate language aside, it would be useful to see if we have a preference for closed or open templates. In the past, many (the majority?) of articles had collapsed templates because of the presence of template aviation; we seemed content with that. My own choice would be all collapsed, partly because a permanently open large navbox can dominate a short article - I think it should be available but neatly closed. Others may differ but it would be good for stylistic consistency if we could reach a consensus; I would certainly go along with a majority call for uncollapsed templates, if that's how it turned out. What do others think?TSRL (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

French id

Does anyone have access to a list of French WWI military serials? There's an identity issue over a French twin biplane serial C.2971 or possibly C.2974. It's on an IWM image in use in one of our articles which may have been mislabelled. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Aircraft manufacturers of France

Template:Aircraft manufacturers of France was just created today by User:Xufanc. Is this really something we need a navbox for? Seems too much too me. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a Template:Aircraft manufacturers of China since 2010. I decided to create it because many of the smaller French aircraft manufacturers' articles are almost orphan. Xufanc (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure a navbox is the way to solve tha the orphan problem. I hadn't noticed the China one before, but in both cases, there are categories for those topics already, and I think they are the better option than another whole slew of navboxes, especially when WPAIR is already under scrutiny for having too many types of navboxes. -BilCat (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not going to invest more time in this issue until I have guarantees that it will not be a wasted effort. Xufanc (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

For the US, the number of entries would make a VERY large nav box - larger than most of pages it would appear on. In my own files I have over 410 directories for just those US companies whose products are well enough known that I have saved more than 4 images - and that is a small portion of the total number of American companies (as can be seen on the Aerofiles page). In comparison I have 158 such directories for France, with a lot of pioneer, glider, homebuilts and the more obscure missing entirely - a fully completed navbox even for the medium sized countries like the UK, Germany or France would be un-navigable. Dividing them up then introduces new problems related to when the aircraft flew versus when it was used, along with a whole new set of arguments. We already have a category system that works reasonably well without the problems associated with keeping these updated as new entries get added. Check out Wikipedia:Template limits - the US page may not exceed the limits but it would drastically slow down any page it was used on.NiD.29 (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Aerospace industry in the United Kingdom is very large and has been around since 2010 too. Xufanc (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Then it and the Chinese.navbox should probably be nommed for deletion, if there is a consensus here that we should not have those types of navboxes. -BilCat (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Better dealt with by a list and related category I think. MilborneOne (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Note that Template:Aircraft manufacturers of France has now been moved by the creator to Template:Defunct aircraft manufacturers of France. - BilCat (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

In that new form it might just have some utility. - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Equally Template:Aerospace industry in the United Kingdom could be split into more than one template. Some of the defunct ones are already tied together by Template:BAE Systems evolution aka (its displayed title) "Timeline of British aerospace companies since 1955"GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Multiple Specifications

It has been a general policy to have only one set of specifications for aircraft articles, I reverted a change by User:Tom355uk to the Hawker Siddeley Trident article but was reverted back with the explanation that the Boeing 727 has such an arrangement. A not unreasonable stance but does anybody know why some airliners have this variant comparison exemption as Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content clearly has Each article should only have one set of specifications and any model differences should be described in the variants or development sections. Multiple sets of specifications are to be avoided.. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe this comes under the heading of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and does not make the 727 article correct. Perhaps the 727 needs to be brought in line with standards? Scr★pIron^IV 19:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it just means the 727 article needs cleaning up! This is not Janes. - Ahunt (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

But a lot of airliner articles have similar spec tables. I don't think the table is a problem. But listing uncommon specs and obscure data is another ~~natter~~matter. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

"Natter" is right! - Ahunt (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Only on this board would that make sense... Scr★pIron^IV 19:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Jeff on this. Most of our airline articles use specs tables, and that's a tacit consensus. For airliners, this seems to work best, so it's probably time to update the Page Content guidelines. I say this a a user who abhors tables, and can't edit them unless they arev extremely simple. - BilCat (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The 'one set of specs' format should be followed, having existing articles with multiple sets can give editors 'leverage' to add more specs to articles that were following the guideline (this relates to the standard specs template). The airliner tables are a different case, where they came from I don't know. They result in an unencyclopaedic 'sea of numbers' when many variants are listed, the specs differences between them are very minor in most cases. A big disadvantage of the table format with many variants listed is the ridiculously small space left for a three-view image in the normal location. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Nimbus227, the tables ought to go and be replaced with the consensus single set of specs of one representative model. - Ahunt (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

To keep everyone happy there is room for 'variant' articles where the 'seas of numbers' could be added infinitum by those who like to do this, leaving the primary article clear and concise. Looking at the Trident article just now the table is the width of the page leaving no room at all for a three-view, Rolls Royce Spey (redirect) is linked four times (overlinking), not the best way to do it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

There is another less obvious problem ongoing in the specs sections, the header will say 'Specifications (ACME Thrunger Mk 1) and squeezed into the parameter lines will be snippets of info from another variant (Wingspan: 25 ft (Thrunger Mk V 26 ft etc)). Confusing and most likely doesn't come from the single source cited for the variant that is supposed to be described. While different standards exist edit wars will never end. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The thing with airliners is that there are usually several variants of which none is preeminent, they usually have different lengths and seating, etc. Airliners generally aren't armed, and so don't have to have armament listed, which can take up a lot of specs space for armed aircraft. Also, though not stated explicitly, it is strongly implied that only one variant's data should be listed in the specs. This is often not followed, and it would be difficult to keep the specs for other airliner variants from being repeatedly added, such as for lengths and seating. This whole issue has been discussed several times in the past by the Aircraft Project, but in the end no consensus was ever reached to remove the specs tables from the airliner articles. One problem I see with the tables is that there is no standard table, so there is a wide variety of layouts for such tables. I think our time would be better spent producing a standard table with a limited set of parameters, and permitting it to be used on airliner articles, perhaps in addition to a standard specs template. - - BilCat (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Finding the representative variant for each type could be discussed on each article's talk page, clinically it could be chosen by the most airframes produced. How many variants do we list? I expect you guys know the 'Observers' series of pocket-sized aircraft books? The layout is specs on the left page for one variant and a three-view on the right page, any major variant specs differences are highlighted in the short text section that precedes the specs. What you want to know in a nutshell and they are not encyclopaedias, they are specialist aircraft publications. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, this issue has come up. It's one that has rankled with me for years, but unfortunately, it seems to do so in the opposite way from some of the rest of you. So I'm going to rant a bit.

Frankly, I strongly disagree with the present policy that an aircraft article should only have one set of specs of a "representative version". I understand the need to protect articles from obsessive nuts who would probably go so far as to add bolt torque values, but this approach has its own problems. Many ordinary readers of our aircraft articles might expect them to include reasonably complete specs for any widely used versions. I certainly do, and I've always been happy that the airliner articles have been willing to buck the general policy to do so.

When an aircraft has been produced in several different versions, each of which has been built in quantity, how do you decide which of these is "representative" and should be chosen for the specs? Looking at the 727, if you decide to cover only the -200 (the most numerous version), you still leave out the -100, about one-third of the aircraft built, whose difference from the -200 (being 15% shorter and carrying a third fewer passengers) was not minor. It's not like the -200 replaced all the -100s or anything. And that's a relatively simple case. The problem appears more acute for the Trident, for which no single version clearly dominated. And what about the B-17, which changed markedly from the early versions to the late ones? There are plenty of other examples. For the 737, well, there are now nine versions, all significant, with more in development. Similar problems come up with engines. What about the Wright Cyclone R-1820? That went through a number of generations, with its power more than doubling toward the end.

In my view, the "pick one" approach is wrong and misleading in such cases. It's better to have a clearly laid out table of specifications for all the major versions produced. Yes, this means adding more detail. But people come to Wikipedia expecting a decent level of detail (ideally, well-sourced, reliable detail). The question is how to structure it clearly.

The current specifications section layout with an optional three-view alongside is largely wasted empty space. It seems best suited to simple articles on aircraft which are poorly known, were built in very small numbers, or which existed in only one significant version. There's no particular reason why the section's contents should be restricted merely to force in a three-view which doesn't necessarily need to go there anyway. (Why not place the three-view with other images?)

I agree that a certain amount of standardization, such as a standard specs table layout, is warranted. And yes, maybe it would be best to have the detailed specs table placed in its own article, with a summary in the main article. I just think the info should be made available somehow.

Also, I can't agree with the argument, "this is an encyclopedia, not Jane's". Let's face it, traditional encyclopedias don't cover individual aircraft at all, nor many of the other topics covered by Wikipedia. If you follow that argument to its conclusion, all but a tiny fraction of the site's content would be stripped clean--no detailed articles on minor battles, tiny British villages, long-forgotten computer games, minor variants in American accents, odd magical-girl anime series, obscure organic compounds, soups of eastern Europe, peculiar amphibians of the Permian period, Apple iPhone hardware details, esoteric issues in mathematics, etc. Wikipedia is a vast gathering of specialist information from different specialties, though structured in a way to benefit the general reader. The whole Aircraft project is Jane's, in effect, though perhaps with more emphasis on history and less on details of construction and such. I can't see any substantive difference between the coverage of this project and that of the many aircraft compendium books produced, including Jane's. Indeed, this project seems to set a higher standard; many such books have specifications tables which are full of errors and omissions or which are poorly laid out.

Thanks for tolerating my rant. :) --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The one-specs restriction predates my time on WP, and I've been here 9 years. When I started editing, mostly in aircraft articles, WPAIR had just converted to using a separate infobox and specs section, so it's possible that the restriction was a carry over from using a combined infobox/specsbox, where only one variant would be feasible. It might be time to reconsider the need for the restriction, especially for airliner articles.- BilCat (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I am of a similar opinion in allowing multiple specs - and have noticed that aircraft pages in other languages often have multiple specifications without undue issues. As it stands now, the only solution is to have an article on each major subtype, which isn't always feasible, especially for the less well documented types, which are often the ones that need it. I can see a problem with limiting the number of specifications when there are a lot of similar variants or if there is little other than specifications but this shouldn't come up too often.

There are pages that cover a wide range of types - Ford Trimotor for instance where there is a number of actual types covered that are not closely related but which haven't been split - having multiple specs could be what it takes to split the page. Waco Custom Cabin series covers 6 types that being light general aviation do not have much in the development or operational use sections and so don't have the bulk to cover 6 pages, but underwent considerable development that can best be seen through a comparison of the specs.

Other types such as the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress underwent major redesigns and it would be useful to see how early variants compared with later ones, especially when using those to compare it to other types that may be contemporary with only the early, or the late versions. The Petlyakov Pe-8 for instance should only be compared to the early models, while the Piaggio P.108 should be compared to the later versions.

The argument used above about "multiple sets can give editors 'leverage' to add more specs to articles that were following the guideline (this relates to the standard specs template)." is circular as if we change the guidelines it isn't an issue - if the specs are very similar then the need to be duplicated can be reviewed on a case by case basis.NiD.29 (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I took a look at some encyclopedic type aircraft books, and they all stick to one spec per entry. Where multiple specs are included they break out versions into separate entries, e.g. the major Messerschmitt Bf 109 variants. This means in practice that if a variant is notable enough to get its own article then it gets its own spec, and if it isn't then it doesn't. This pretty much works for me and unless and until we can find a viable way to keep multiple fanboy specs under control I would hate to loosen the bonds. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that in the vast majority of cases a single (representative) specification is all that is required for the prime article on an aircraft. Where there are differences between variants that warrant comparison (eg the length/seating/engines for airliners, engine/bombload in a military plane) then a table in the article (positioned suitably) is sensible. And that table should be constructed according to the articles needs: with brevity and readability the target. On a side note - I've never thought of the aircraft project as Jane's in its coverage but closer to Flight. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

For the majority of cases I agree, however there are a few that should have multiple specs and the door needs to be left open, on a case by case basis. No need for specs for every F-5 variant, but designs that underwent considerable development between early and late production versions, and airliners should not be a major problem.NiD.29 (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I concur. In the case of the F-5, a rationale could be made for splitting off the F-5E/F/Ns to their own article, but to this point we've kept them together. The AH-1 Cobra and SuperCobras (2 separate articles already) are similar cases with early/late variant specs. - BilCat (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Kawanishi E5K1

I recently created Kawanishi E5K but it has been nominated for deletion by User:Petebutt on the grounds it is a variant of the Yokosuka E5Y. It would have perhaps be more sensible to discuss if a redirect or otherwise is needed but there appears to be some confusion as both types used the Navy Type 90-3 Reconnaissance Seaplane designation but dont appear to be exactly the same. Dont have a problem with a redirect (either way) but has anybody got reliable sources on these types to work out whats going on, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The E5K does seem to be a variant of the E5Y according to Mikesh and Abe's Japanese Aircraft 1910–1941 (p137 and 278-9)Nigel Ish (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Try Mikesh, Robert; Shorzoe Abe (1990). Japanese Aircraft 1910–1941. London: Putnam. ISBN 978-0-85177-840-2.. Both E5Y and E5K had a common progenitor in the Yokosuka Navy Type 14-2 Reconnaissance Seaplane. The E5K / Type G was merely a variant of the Yokosuka Type 90-3 Reconnaissance Seaplane. They are to all intents and purposes the same aircraft, with minor modifications and differring engines. As with many Yokosuka designs, the Type 90-3 Reconnaissance Seaplane was sub-contracted out for production.--Petebutt (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that the E5Y article doesnt have any inline references and probably could do with more work, both articles claim 20 built, did they build twenty of each or is it really only 20 total? Dont have a problem with a redirect but it cant be done with an active AfD, perhaps you could consider withdrawing that Pete. MilborneOne (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

According to Mikesh and Abe, there appears to have been 17 E5Ks, and "about 20 E5Ys" although this may include the E5Ks. The source isn't crystal clear. It isn't helped that the prototypes were named Type 14-2, which would suggest more of a link to the Yokosuka E1Y (or Type 14 Reconnaissance Seaplane) than actually existed.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if I can withdraw the nom, but a consensus for merge in the discussion would realise the desired outcome. More than a little confusing at first, but from Mikesh; the total built seems to be 20; no direct relation to the Navy Type 14 Reconnaissance Seaplane; the Navy Type 14-2 Reconnaissance Seaplane was a clean sheet design; a variety of engines were used; 17 production aircraft built by Kawanishi. (N.B. when you use the long designation you must write it in full or it is meaningless!!!)--Petebutt (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:DC-9

{{DC-9}} New template has just appeared on DC-9s, does it add any value and if it does will they spread to other types? MilborneOne (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

No, templates like that add a lot of article clutter. It should be converted into a simple navbox instead. - Ahunt (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Concur that it's better as a navbox footer, though I really don't see the need for it in the first place. Note that the user is fairly new. - BilCat (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Every new element that gets tossed in the pot adds to the complexity of maintenance and requires new sets of rules and standards. For the sake of project maintenance I would recommend against opening the door to this. Scr★pIron^IV 17:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I've removed them from the airliner articles, with a note in the edit summary to see this discussion. In some cases, the sidebar was pushing other photos way down the page, and causing squeezing issues with left-aligned photos. A footer is definetely preferable. - BilCat (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It does not need an image if it is placed right under Infobox. It should be fine as a footer or navbox (I'm not sure of the difference). Naming it something like "Template:DC-9 family" would be better, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, navboxes can be placed anywhere n an article. This navbox is designed as a sidebar, while the ones at the bottom of an article are footers. - BilCat (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

As the creator of the template, I have now removed this sidebar from all pages where it is used. I have now tagged this template for speedy deletion G7.Sovereign Sentinel (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The template has been deleted. Sovereign Sentinel (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The consensus here was basically to convert it to a footer navbox to go at the bottom of the page. Would that be satisfactory? - BilCat (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Piper J-3 Cub

Needs some eyes, possible edit war brewing over one user wanting to overpopulate the page with images of British "Flitfires". I commented on that persons userpage already, as have others.NiD.29 (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The section is completely over the top, and needs to be trimmed right back to avoid WP:UNDUE issues. Also, many of the photos that are being edit warred over are of dubious copyright status. I have nominated two for deletion on Commons. Nigel Ish (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I've trimmed the section back and removed the excess photos. Of course, now the Flitfire article needs serious work.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

And the editor has reverted the changes to the article - claiming I am "not longer an active user"! and that they have initiated a "talk" somewhere although it is unclear where.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Nid.29, that's not quite right. What I stated was that Nigel Ish, who was heavily editing my work, was no longer be an active user, as he claimed on his user page. I was confused by the contradiction of Nigel Ish's words versus his actions. However, that point is now moot to me.

Anyway, I got on here tonight because I have changed my mind about being a member of the WikiProject Aircraft. Please let me know how to un-join this group. It's much too Gestapo-ish for me. Thank you.

Cubgirl4444 (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

There are rules, as there are in all communities, which are necessary to facilitate collaboration, and yes it does take time to understand them all. It isn't Gestapo-ish in the slightest. I think everyone runs afoul of some of them from time to time, myself included, but all rules are created and maintained by consensus - and not by popularity or by fiat but by strength of argument. If there is a divergence of opinion, we discuss both the reasons for the current rules, and consider changing those rules, if adequate reasonable arguments are put forward that support those changes. Some rules have been put in place to ensure the usefulness of the pages (having a lot of images has been shown to impair accessibility and readibility), some to ensure all positions are treated with due weight so some minority argument cannot be confused as a common argument (balance - if there are several positions they all need to be included), and the words that are chosen need to be neutral so as to not seem to be taking a position. Also, as a part of this, excessive details on one specific use are discouraged unless there is something to counteract it - a 1000 words on the flitfire might be appropriate if the whole article already has 25,000 words but not if the article only has 2000 words. The key is balance. FWIW there is no need to unsubscribe from anything but you can un-watch any pages you have made changes to, including this one, and can turn email notifications off in the settings. I hope eventually you'll change your mind about leaving. As for whether someone is an active user - it isn't relevant as editors are allowed to take breaks any time they feel like it, however if you had looked at his list of edits, you would have seen he was very much active.NiD.29 (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

US military roundels

I was looking for an article on the various roundels used on US military aircraft, but couldn't find anything at all. There is a text section at Military aircraft insignia#United States, and the historical roundels are shown in a later section of that article, Military aircraft insignia#Former insignia of national air forces. However, we don't seem to have an article like Royal Air Force roundels. (And no, I'm not gonna say that if the RAF has one, the USAF should too!!) However, I think there is enough information available to create and sustain a similar article on US roundels. Military aircraft insignia#United States does have a lengthy text history, but only one source. I do have a book, Angelucci, Enzo (1987). The American Fighter: The Definite Guide to American Fighter Aircraft from 1917 to the Present. New York: Orion Books. ISBN 0-51756-588-9. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help), that has some details on the history of the US roundels that I can use to cite most of the text. DEVELOPMENT OF USAF INSIGNIA and U.S. Naval Aircraft Marking also have some history and photos.

Does anyone see any objections to creating such an article? It should probably also cover fin flashes, as does the RAF article, and I would probably use that article's format and tables as a pattern, at least initially. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like a worthy project to me! - Ahunt (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I started it a while ago in my sandbox at User:NiD.29/US Insignia but couldn't find anything on the introduction of the monotone roundels - feel free to use what I started - note that there is an unresolved issue with the monotone (black/white or grey) roundels I was unable to fix - someone with more experience with the format should be able to fix the problem I am sure. Cheers,NiD.29 (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! That wil save a alot work, especially since I'm table-deficient. - BilCat (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

NiD.29, do you have any preferences for attribution, and do you want me to work in your sandbox? Would you prefer me to just copy the contents and attribute them to your sandbox link, or just work in the sandbox until the article is ready, and then move it to mainspace? Either way is fine with me, though I find it useful to have the detailed edit histories in the article, as it's helpful in proving prior work in cases of unattributed copies on other websites that claim copyrights. - BilCat (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, any ideas for a name for the article? I was thinking of United States military aircraft national insignia. - BilCat (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Good name and feel free to work on it in my sandbox - I can rename it once you feel it is ready for the move.NiD.29 (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, that is probably a good choice of names for it. - Ahunt (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I have moved it into main article space as United States military aircraft national insignia after updating some of the roundels - it still needs references galore though.NiD.29 (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

737 variants

The end of the Variants section of the McDonnell Douglas DC-9 article currently states:

Whereas on the Boeing 737 article, information about the newer generation variants of the 737 (737-300 to 737-900) is also mentioned, and information is duplicated on two separate articles.

Would it be a good idea to consolidate all information about the variants on their respective articles? That is, the Boeing 737 article would only contain information about the -100 and -200, plus small sections for each of the generations, directing readers to these articles with {{main}} hatnotes. The Boeing 737 Classic article would contain information about the -300, -400 and -500 variants, the Boeing 737 Next Generation article containing information about the -600, -700, -800 and -900 variants, and the Boeing 737 MAX article containing information about the MAX.

Note that information in the Accidents and incidents, Aircraft on display and Specifications sections of the Boeing 737 article mainly consists of specifications of the main 737. My proposal would reduce the hassle of updating two articles at the same time. Sovereign Sentinel (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The Boeing 737 article covers all the 737 variants. The accidents section does summarize all the variants, but only lists the -100 and -200 accident entries to prevent repeat of the entries for the later variants. The specifications do cover all the variants in a summary manner. It would be better start a separate article on the original variants than rescope the main 737 article, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

An IP has tried to create Boeing 737 Original, but it's been reverted twice already. It's probably best to discuss a split on the 737 talk page first. I don't see the need for another 737 article at this point. - BilCat (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I should explain: these sections should be removed from the Boeing 737 article, because they are redundant to the same sections in the Boeing 737 Classic and Boeing 737 Next Generation articles:

737-300
737-400
737-500
737-600
737-700
737-800
737-900
Boeing Business Jet

-sovereign°sentinel 06:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The Boeing 737 is the main article and can repeat some info covered in other articles per WP:Summary style. So removing all repeated info as you suggest is not appropriate. Boeing Business Jet covers 737, 747, 777 and other business jet versions. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

With that said, the 737 Classic and NG variant sections did not really follow Summary style. So I cut of the details. Boeing 737 should be in better shape in the respect now. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)